DoD's $23.5M Engineering Services Contract with Micro Systems Consultants Raises Questions on Competition and Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,488,850 ($23.5M)

Contractor: Micro Systems Consultants, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-09-27

End Date: 2021-09-27

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF IDRMP ASSESSMENT

Place of Performance

Location: HICKAM AFB, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96853

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.5 million to MICRO SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF IDRMP ASSESSMENT Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Micro Systems Consultants, Inc. for engineering services represents a significant expenditure. 2. The contract type 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' suggests a potentially limited competitive landscape. 3. The duration of the contract (1826 days) and its fixed-price nature warrant scrutiny for cost-effectiveness. 4. The absence of small business participation is noted. 5. The sector is Engineering Services, a critical area for defense operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $23.5 million over five years for engineering services needs comparison against similar contracts. The fixed-price nature aims to control costs, but the specific services rendered and their necessity are key to assessing value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The competition method, 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicates that while competition was sought, it was restricted. This approach can limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs than a truly open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may result in taxpayers paying more than necessary if alternative, more competitive sources were available but excluded.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying due to restricted competition for essential engineering services. The lack of transparency in the 'exclusion of sources' process raises concerns about fairness and efficiency. The long-term nature of the contract could lock the government into potentially suboptimal pricing. The absence of small business involvement limits opportunities for smaller, innovative firms.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition
Lack of small business participation
Potential for overpayment due to restricted bidding

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract to control costs
Long-term engagement provides stability

Sector Analysis

Engineering services are crucial for the Department of Defense's operational readiness and technological advancement. Benchmarks for similar contracts are essential to evaluate if $23.5 million over five years is competitive.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates no small business participation (sb: false). This suggests that opportunities for small businesses in this engineering services contract were either not pursued or not met, potentially missing out on specialized capabilities and innovation.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' method requires careful oversight to ensure the exclusion of sources was justified and that the competition, though limited, was fair and resulted in the best value. Accountability for the procurement decision is paramount.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Air Force Programs

Risk Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about price fairness.
Lack of small business participation.
Potential for cost overruns or suboptimal value due to restricted bidding.
The 'exclusion of sources' process needs clear justification.
Long contract duration may not adapt to changing needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.5 million to MICRO SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF IDRMP ASSESSMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MICRO SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-09-27. End: 2021-09-27.

What specific engineering services were procured, and how was the necessity and scope determined to justify the $23.5 million expenditure?

The necessity and scope of engineering services are critical to evaluating the $23.5 million expenditure. Without detailed service descriptions, it's difficult to ascertain if the contract addressed genuine needs or if the scope was inflated. A thorough review of the contract's statement of work and any associated justifications would be required to confirm the value and appropriateness of the services procured.

What were the specific reasons for excluding other potential sources, and was this exclusion documented and justified according to federal procurement regulations?

The exclusion of other sources under this contract requires rigorous justification to ensure compliance with federal procurement regulations. Agencies must clearly document why specific sources were excluded, demonstrating that the exclusion was based on objective criteria and served the government's best interest. A review of the contract file and justification documents would be necessary to confirm the legality and rationale behind the exclusion.

How does the per-unit cost or overall cost-effectiveness of these engineering services compare to industry benchmarks or previous contracts for similar work?

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of these engineering services against industry benchmarks or prior contracts is essential for value assessment. Given the $23.5 million total value over five years, a detailed cost analysis, including labor rates, overhead, and profit margins, should be benchmarked. Without this comparative data, it's challenging to determine if the government secured a competitive price or if there's potential for cost savings.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2785 HARTLAND RD, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22043

Business Categories: Category Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $158,585,874

Exercised Options: $110,502,871

Current Obligation: $23,488,850

Actual Outlays: $758,440

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADS127

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline